Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-kcxw8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-17T04:37:05.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Psychological and behavioral implications of self-protection and self-enhancement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 July 2022

Dianne M. Tice Open the ORCID record for Dianne M. Tice [Opens in a new window] ,
Roy F. Baumeister Open the ORCID record for Roy F. Baumeister [Opens in a new window]  and
Constantine Sedikides Open the ORCID record for Constantine Sedikides [Opens in a new window]
Dianne M. Tice
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA diannetice@byu.edu
Roy F. Baumeister
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia r.baumeister@uq.edu.au
Constantine Sedikides
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK c.sedikides@soton.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Self-protection can have psychological and behavioral implications. We contrast them with the implications of a self-enhancement strategy. Both self-enhancement and self-protection have costs and benefits as survival strategies, and we identify some of the emotional, cognitive, and behavioral tradeoffs associated with the differential preferences for each strategy. New analyses on a large existing data set confirm the target article's hypothesis that women are more attuned than men to potential negative consequences of innovations.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e147
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alicke, M. D., & Sedikides, C. (2009). Self-enhancement and self-protection: What they are and what they do. European Review of Social Psychology, 20, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280802613866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in western man. Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Batz-Barbarich, C., Tay, T., Kuykendall, L., & Cheung, H. K. (2018). A meta-analysis of gender differences in subjective well-being: Estimating effect sizes and associations with gender inequality. Psychological Science, 29(9), 1491–1503. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618774796CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Hutton, D. G. (1989). Self-presentational motivations and personality differences in self-esteem. Journal of Personality, 57(3), 547–579. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb02384.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dufner, M., Gebauer, J. E., Sedikides, C., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2019). Self-enhancement and psychological adjustment: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23(1), 48–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868318756467CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grijalva, E., Newman, D. A., Tay, L., Donnellan, M. B., Harms, P. D., Robins, R. W., & Yan, T. (2015). Gender differences in narcissism: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 141(2), 261–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038231CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hsu, N., Badura, K. L., Newman, D. A., & Speach, M. E. P. (2021). Gender, “masculinity,” and “femininity”: A meta-analytic review of gender differences in agency and communion. Psychological Bulletin, 147(10), 987–1011. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kling, K. C., Hyde, J. S., Showers, C. J., & Buswell, B. N. (1999). Gender differences in self-esteem: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(4), 470–500. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.4.470CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Mara, E. M., Gaertner, L., Sedikides, C., Zhou, X., & Liu, Y. (2012). A longitudinal-experimental test of the panculturality of self-enhancement: Self-enhancement promotes psychological well-being both in the West and the East. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 157–163. https://doi.org/:10.1016/j.jrp.2012.01.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reece, A., Eubanks, A. D., Liebscher, A., & Baumeister, R. F. (2022). Enforcing pragmatic future-mindedness cures the innovator's bias. Manuscript submitted for publication, BetterUp, Inc.Google Scholar
Salk, R. H., Hyde, J. S., & Abramson, L. Y. (2017). Gender differences in depression in representative national samples: Meta-analyses of diagnoses and symptoms. Psychological Bulletin, 143(8), 783–822. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000102CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sedikides, C. (2020). On the doggedness of self-enhancement and self-protection: How constraining are reality constraints? Self and Identity, 19(3), 251–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2018.1562961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L., & Cai, H. (2015). On the panculturality of self-enhancement and self-protection motivation: The case for the universality of self-esteem. Advances in Motivation Science, 2, 185–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adms.2015.04.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shorey, R. C., Zucosky, H., Brasfield, H., Febres, J., Cornelius, T. L., Sage, C., & Stuart, G. L. (2012). Dating violence prevention programming: Directions for future interventions. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(4), 289–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.03.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tice, D. M. (1991). Esteem protection or enhancement? Self-handicapping motives and attributions differ by trait self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5), 711–725. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.5.711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, J. E., Klosko, J. S., & Weishaar, M. E. (2003). Schema therapy: A practitioner's guide. Guilford Press.Google Scholar